Viewfinder and Rear Screen

The A7R series has always been where Sony has debuted new EVF technology, and the A7R IV is no different. The A7R IV debuts a new 5.76 million dot electronic viewfinder, which is a substantial resolution upgrade from the earlier 3.7 million dot finder found in the A7R III and a huge upgrade over the 2.44 million dot finder in the A7 III. The increased resolution is definitely visible, and the large 0.78x magnification makes the viewfinder both very large and very clear. The viewfinder defaults to a 60Hz refresh rate, though it can be bumped to 100Hz by changing the EVF refresh rate to high in the settings. Do note, however that upping the refresh rate will reduce the resolution of the EVF.

While the EVF is an improvement on earlier Sony bodies, and is overall quite good, it isn’t quite as natural looking as some of the other EVFs in the market, despite the excellent resolution.

The rear screen on the A7R IV is 1.44 million dots, which is generally fine, but is pretty low resolution compared to a lot of competitors, many of which have 2 million dot rear screens that are clearer.

As I mentioned earlier, the rear screen is touch capable, but Sony hasn’t seen fit to take full advantage of the hardware. Swiping through images, touching to focus or change focus point and use of the rear screen as a focus point trackpad is all possible, but that’s where the capabilities end. Menu navigation, on-screen buttons, etc are all only usable with the joystick or four-way dial. This is pretty lame for a camera released in 2019, especially one that sits as the company’s flagship.

Autofocus and Performance

Sony’s autofocus systems have been best in the mirrorless world for the last few years, and the A7R IV inherits all of that legacy and incorporates all of the latest functions, with 425 phase detect autofocus points, real-time Eye-AF and real-time tracking. The AF points cover almost the entire sensor vertically, and about 80% of the frame horizontally, providing near full-frame coverage of the sensor.

Autofocus performance on the A7R IV is very similar to that of the a6400, which is excellent. While the slower sensor refresh doesn’t allow the R IV to keep up with the A9 series at the absolute pinnacle of mirrorless AF performance, the A7R IV provides fast, accurate autofocus in both single shot AF and continuous AF. The real-time tracking and real-time Eye AF are game changing technologies, and I was extremely glad to have these capabilities on my full frames body after experiencing them on the a6400.

Real time tracking allows you to start focusing on an object, and the camera will track wherever it goes in the frame. Combined with the ability for the camera to grab eyes anywhere in the frame, taking candids of people has never been easier. The camera just grabs the eye, holds on and doesn’t let go, even if your subject is moving around. For capturing photos of children, it’s simply brilliant, as you can focus on the composition and capturing the decisive moment, rather than constantly fiddling with the AF joystick to position your focus point.

As I noted in my a6400 review, it’s also really nice for macro work and wildlife as well. The camera just sort of melts into the background and allows you to focus on the image, rather than your focus settings.

Performance

The A7R IV, despite being one of the highest resolution cameras in existence, doesn’t slack in the performance department either. It is capable of shooting at 10 frames per second without AF tracking, or 8 frames per second with it.

Shooting at these frame rates while pumping 60 megapixel images into the frame buffer uses a tremendous amount of data. As you’d expect, the buffer isn’t quite as large as on many other cameras, but given the data requirements, the buffer certainly isn’t bad at all. If you insist on shooting uncompressed RAW files, which weigh in at a hefty 120 MB each, the buffer is a middling 32 frames when shooting at 10 FPS. If shooting heavy bursts, you certainly could run into a limitation here. However, move to compressed RAW or JPEG shooting, and the buffer extends to a very respectable 70 frames or so, which should satisfy all but dedicated sports photographers, and even they would probably do just fine with that buffer in many situations.

Helping with the large data requirements is the fact that both SD card slots are now UHS-II capable, rather than the single UHS-II slot on earlier models. This is especially helpful since the mark III bodies would write at UHS-I speeds to both cards if using two cards, even if writing less data to the UHS-I slot. With both cards now being UHS-II, that limitation no longer applies. Even with the extra speed, writing the 120MB uncompressed RAW files takes a second or two to write full from the buffer to the card.

Both card slots are now UHS-II

It’s worth noting that not all UHS-II cards are created equal, and the A7R IV craves fast cards due to the sheer size of the image files. Ali Griffin has done some fairly extensive testing on a variety of SD cards, and found that Sony’s own SF-G Tough cards were the fastest in the A7R IV, maxing out the camera’s write bandwidth at 200MB/s. SanDisk’s Extreme Pro 300 was just behind. As these cards are exceptionally expensive, I have opted for the much more budget friendly, but still very fast Sony SF-M Tough UHS-II cards, which have the same extremely strong build quality as the SF-G Tough cards, and work very well with the A7R IV. In my testing, the A7R IV is able to write to the SF-M cards at the card’s rated speed of 150MB/s. I’ll take the slight speed reduction for the huge cost savings. They’re good cards.

The general camera performance of the A7R IV is also quite good, with little to no lag in entering menus, and shutter lag is low. However, Sony still has a few odd delays built into certain operations that are a bit frustrating in this day and age. The camera takes longer than most to turn on and be ready to shoot, with about a two second delay from power on to shot. Also, certain settings can’t be changed when the camera is writing an image to the card, such as drive mode. These quirks should be a thing of the past by now.

Wow. Some folks at the big box sites should take a lesson on what artwork should look like in a review article. Amazing images. I know it is too much camera and lens to haul around for me all the time, but it certainly can perform.

Regarding sample images made with the Sony A7R-IV, I notice you have several sample shots made with the Sigma 14-24 but not yet a review. You also have sample shots using the Tamron 17-28 but your review only included using the A7 III. Of these two lenses, which did you generally find exploited the Sony’s 60MP the best?

My review of the Sigma should be posted sometime in the next day or two. I have it 99% written…just cleaning things up. My Tamron review was written before I got the A7R IV. As a bit of a preview…let’s just say the review of the Sigma is, well, glowing.

I did. I switched back in December and sold my A7 III. Main motive was that I got a great deal on a new A7R IV and couldn’t pass it up, and the big motivation was the real-time Eye AF and tracking. After using it on my a6400, not having it on my A7 III felt like a huge step down in AF functionality. It’s not that the A7 III is bad at focusing…far from it, but the compositional freedom that the upgraded tracking system offers is just so nice to have.

After using it for a while, the 60MP files are a bit intoxicating too. 🙂

Thanks Jordan for your feedback. I thought Sony had updated the Eye-AF of the A73 to A6400 level?

I am still debating whether to upgrade from my ailing single camera setup A6000 with A6400/6600 and the Sigma primes or go for the A7-III and the Tamron zooms. Price is not that different as weight is. However, I am not on your Pro level :-).
Do you have any recommendations regarding that choice?

The AF updated on the A7 III brought improvements to EyeAF, including animal Eye AF, which is part of the a6400/a9 style focusing, but it did not bring the real-time Tracking AF, which makes all the difference. The A7 III still required you to have the focus point generally in the vicinity (though with Eye AF, you could use zone focusing and have it pick eyes out in general.) The tracking AF, combined with Eye AF is what is really revolutionary….it will follow your subject around the frame, and not lose them if they hide their face, but switch to tracking them as a whole, then re-acquire the eye once it reappears. It’s also super useful for other types of shooting that don’t require Eye AF.

As to choosing between the crop bodies and the A7 III, it’s really a personal choice. The A7 III image quality is going to be better, with more dynamic range and better noise control, though only you can know if that really makes a tangible difference for your shooting. If you don’t shoot a lot of low light, or you don’t print very large, it’s unlikely you’ll see any real difference in output in day to day usage. The A7 III will show improvement when the sensor is stressed, such as wide dynamic range applications and the such, and has a bit smoother tonal rolloff. However, the overall improvement isn’t something that will likely jump out at you. The a6400/6600 are definitely much smaller, and consequently are lighter to carry around, especially as a kit with smaller lenses, though they also aren’t as comfortable to shoot with. Personally, I preferred my A7 III to to the a6400, but it really is a personal choice.

The Full frame system certainly has a better overall lens selection, and while you can buy FE lenses for use on the a6400, they generally aren’t not well suited ergonomically, and sometimes may not be quite sharp enough for you, though that is dependent on each lens…the best lenses will be just fine on the denser a6400/6600 sensor. I will say I wouldn’t go for the Tamron zooms on the crop bodies. First of all, they make for very awkward focal lengths (26-42mm and 42-112mm), but they also aren’t going to be quite as good image quality wise as something like the new Sony 16-55mm f/2.8, which is what I’d get if I were investing in an APS-C only system as a standard zoom. That will cover most of the range of the two Tamron zooms and do so with a lens that is geared towards the smaller sensor.

The Sigma f/1.4 primes are outstanding, though. I own the 30/1.4 and 56/1.4, and they’re great. The 56/1.4 is astonishingly good.

Excellent review and astounding images Jordan….. I’ve really enjoyed your site and the real world reviews you have done…. Straight with no chaser…… I’m not quite there yet, just having finally upgrading from my A99 to A7Rii, I along with both Tamron’s 17-28 / 28-70, and the Batis 25. I’ve been chopping at the bit to get out and shoot once the NP’s open up again and after looking at your images just intensified those feelings.

Archives

We use cookies to personalize content and ads and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information that you’ve provided to them or that they’ve collected from your use of their services. You may consent to the use of cookies or opt out. AcceptRejectRead More